Idaho Will Enforce Abortion Travel Ban
12.2.24
Click to skip ahead: In Travel Ban News, an appeals court is allowing Idaho to enforce most of its so-called ‘abortion trafficking’ law. In Attacks on Democracy, Missouri’s AG is looking to undo Amendment 3. In the States, news from Wyoming, Wisconsin, Tennessee and Minnesota. In Better News, a focus on Colorado and California. In the Nation, Trump’s press secretary is shifting her abortion talking points. Listen Up to a Texas Public Radio podcast episode with an epic lineup. And ICYMI, the new anti-abortion legal strategy in Minnesota.
Travel Ban News
I wish I didn’t have bad news for you on the first day back from a holiday weekend, I’m sorry. An appeals court has ruled that Idaho can enforce most of its anti-abortion travel ban, making it the first state in the nation to do so.
It’s been a minute since we talked about these laws, so here’s a refresher: In 2023, Idaho Republicans passed a so-called “abortion trafficking” law, claiming it would stop adults from taking minors across state lines for abortions without parental permission. In truth, the law criminalizes helping a teenager obtain an abortion in any capacity—anywhere.
The law bans “recruiting, harboring, or transporting” a minor with the purpose of helping them get an abortion—sweeping language that could send someone to prison as a ‘trafficker’ for lending a teen gas money or texting them them url to an abortion clinic.
That’s the point, of course: Republicans want to scare anyone who might help teens access abortion—whether it’s a beloved grandmother or a local abortion fund. As I’ve written so many times before, they’re targeting the helpers.
Initially, a judge blocked the law on First Amendment grounds. (It’s an obvious violation of free speech rights.) But today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, ruling that Idaho can enforce the ban. At least, most of it.
The good news is that the judges struck down the language around “recruiting,” which was the primary free speech issue:
“‘Recruiting’ has broad contours that overlap extensively with the First Amendment. It sweeps in a large swath of expressive activities—from encouragement, counseling, and emotional support; to education about available medical services and reproductive health care; to public advocacy promoting abortion care and abortion access.”
Wendy Heipt, an attorney for the abortion rights groups who challenged the law, called the ruling “a significant victory for the plaintiffs, as it frees Idahoans to talk with pregnant minors about abortion healthcare.”
Still, the ban on ‘harboring and transporting’ a minor for abortion remains. I’ll have more for you tomorrow on what that means and how the law is likely to be interpreted and enforced. In the meantime, please remember that this is not just about Idaho! Tennessee also has an anti-abortion travel ban that is blocked, and Republicans have introduced similar legislation in Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma.
And as you know, this doesn’t stop with teenagers. I wrote at length in my book about how young people are the canaries in the coal mine: what happens to them today comes for us all tomorrow. After all, multiple counties in Texas have already passed travel bans targeting abortion patients of all ages, and Alabama’s Attorney General has made noise about restricting travel for pregnant women.
It continues to baffle me that this is not front page news every single day. If legislators were trying to trap men in states where they couldn’t get healthcare, we would never hear the end of it. I wrote a rant about this last year, if you feel like getting even more pissed off:
Attacks on Democracy
Missouri’s Republican Attorney General is looking for ways to undo the will of the voters, just weeks after Missourians passed an amendment to protect abortion rights in the state constitution.
Andrew Bailey issued an opinion last week arguing that while the ban on abortion will be unenforceable, some restrictions are still legal—including parental consent laws and efforts to ‘protect’ women against coerced abortions. It’s that latter claim I’m most interested in.
As I pointed out on Friday, rhetoric around ‘coerced’ abortion is ramping up; Republicans think they’ll be more able to impose unpopular anti-abortion laws without pushback by framing them as measures to protect vulnerable women and children.
The strategy is nothing new, of course: That’s the same way GOP lawmakers have defended waiting periods, ultrasound mandates and TRAP laws. ‘Coerced abortion’ is just the latest iteration of that tactic.
For example, Bailey says 61% of women who have abortions have been pressured in some way and that clinics routinely coerce women into ending their pregnancies. He’s doing something very specific here: He’s signaling to Missouri Republicans what kind of anti-abortion legislation they should pursue in order to undermine Amendment 3.
We’ve seen in other states what laws around ‘coercion’ might look like: Louisiana legislators used it to advance the law classifying abortion medication as a controlled substance; and Kansas Republicans tried to pass a bill requiring doctors to ask patients invasive questions that were more about shaming women than helping them.
By the way, it should come as no surprise that Bailey is attacking democracy. This is a man who used the power of his office to hold up signature-gathering for Amendment 3, only stopping when forced by the Missouri Supreme Court. He even said he’d refuse to enforce the law if Amendment 3 passed.
So as we see different strategies come out of the Missouri AG’s office, it would do us all well to remember that Bailey told us explicitly that he wouldn’t be protect the will of the voters.
In the States
It was just a few weeks ago that a judge struck down Wyoming’s abortion bans, and Republicans are already trying to overturn the ruling. That said, Wyoming Public Media reports that it could be as long as a year before the legal matter is settled. As the issue makes its way through the courts, remember what we’re watching out for here: Republicans’ argument that abortion isn’t healthcare.
Judge Melissa Owens ruled that Wyoming’s two bans—a general prohibition on abortion and a law specific to abortion medication—violated an amendment in the state constitution that protects people’s right to make their own healthcare decisions. The state had argued that abortion isn’t healthcare because "it’s not restoring the woman’s body from pain, physical disease or sickness,” and we can expect to see them take that same claim to the state Supreme Court.
We’ll also see more of this argument across the country; anti-abortion legislators and activists have been playing down how dangerous pregnancy is, and increasingly trying to divorce abortion from healthcare.
Meanwhile, let’s look at what’s happening in Tennessee. State Sen. Raumesh Akbari has introduced a bill to protect birth control and IVF treatments, saying the legislation will provide “clarity and reassurance” that the issues won’t be impacted by the state’s total abortion ban.
“These are fundamental aspects of reproductive healthcare, and safeguarding them is essential to protecting the well-being of women and families across our state,” she said.
Legislation like this is vital whether or not it passes—because if Tennessee Republicans oppose it, they’re sending voters a clear message that they were never going to stop at abortion. They’ll claim that the state’s ban doesn’t target contraception or IVF so the bill is unnecessary, of course, but it could be a useful PR tool for Democrats.
If you missed last week’s column about Republicans’ end game on abortion, make sure to read it below:
Telehealth for abortion may be illegal in Wisconsin, but that hasn’t stopped patients from getting abortion medication via shield state providers. Wisconsin Public Radio delved into the latest #WeCount data, which shows that about 130 people a month are having abortion pills shipped to them from pro-choice states. If everyone who gets the pills takes them, the medication will account for a quarter of abortions in the state.
You may remember that abortion was banned in Wisconsin after Roe was overturned. But last summer, a judge ruled that the 1849 law Republicans said banned abortion wasn’t a ban at all—but “a feticide statute only.” That opened the door for abortion providers to resume care, and Republicans have been fighting it out in the courts every since. The case is in front of the state Supreme Court right now.
What’s so interesting about the Wisconsin #WeCount data is that even after clinics resumed providing abortions, the numbers of people getting pills from out-of-state doctors didn’t go down—but went slightly up.
Jenny Higgins, director of the Collaborative for Reproductive Equity at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told WPR, “These telehealth services offer something really important to people, regardless of whether brick and mortar facilities offer care in our state.” Shed points out that in addition to physical distance hurdles, the cost of abortion medication is frequently lower that the cost of procedural abortions, especially when you add in child care, travel, etc.
This is exactly why anti-abortion activists are so keen to go after abortion medication!
Meanwhile, even Americans living in pro-choice states are worried about contraception access. Minnesota Public Radio reports that there’s been an increase in requests for long-acting birth control, sterilizations and vasectomies since Trump won the election.
“People are worried,” says Dr. Sarah Traxler, the chief medical officer with Planned Parenthood North Central States. “There’s a lot of unknown about what’s going to happen with sexual and reproductive health care access across the country.”
The reproductive rights group reports that they’ve seen a 150% increase in appointments for long-acting contraception, and their vasectomy appointments are filled up through January.
Quick hits:
The latest on North Carolina’s legal battle over mifepristone restrictions;
The abortion numbers in Michigan hit a 30 year high;
And how the ACLU is working to strengthen abortion rights in Delaware.
In Better News
Here’s something interesting: California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced two new bills to protect abortion rights, including one designed to shield Californians if the Trump administration tries to enforce the Comstock Act. From Bonta’s office:
“If the federal government tries to ban the mailing and distribution of medication abortion, the Medical Abortion Access bill would shield manufacturers, distributors, authorized healthcare providers, and individuals from civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action for accessing, mailing, shipping, receiving, transporting, distributing, or administering medication abortion in California.”
It’s unclear how this would hold up against the Supremacy Clause (which says that federal law trumps state law), but I’m glad to see California Democrats preemptively pick this fight. Bonta says the bill is “a flag we’re planting in the ground.”
The second proposed bill would give Bonta enforcement authority over the Reproductive Privacy Act, allowing him to fine those who violate the law. The Act protects patients’ ability to access abortion care, and Bonta specifically pointed to an incident earlier this year where city officials worked behind the scenes to block an abortion clinic from opening in Beverly Hills.
“California will remain a safe haven for reproductive rights and access to abortion care, no matter who is in the White House," Bonta said.
We also have some good news out of Colorado: Starting in January, private health insurance companies will have to fully cover abortion care. The requirement comes from a law signed by Gov. Jared Polis as part of a 2023 package of abortion rights protections. Insurers will also be required to cover birth control, vasectomies and STI treatment without copays.
Even better: While the law had an exception for insurance policies provided by government employers, that is likely to change now that Colorado voters passed Amendment 79. The pro-choice ballot measure protected abortion rights in the state constitution, and lifted the ban on public funding for abortion. (That might take a few months to implement, repro experts in the state say.)
In the Nation
Well, I don’t love this development. Last week, I wrote about the evolution of Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt’s response to abortion questions. For a while it was this:
“President Trump has long been consistent in supporting the rights of states to make decisions on abortion and has been very clear that he will not sign a federal ban when he is back in the White House.”
Then she dropped the second clause and answered all questions on abortion by responding (word-for-word), “President Trump has long been consistent in supporting the rights of states to make decisions on abortion.”
Now it appears that Leavitt has switched it up again—and not for the better. This was her response when USA Today reached out to ask about Trump’s willingness to enact federal abortion legislation:
“The American people re-elected President Trump by a resounding margin giving him a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail. He will deliver.”
Now, it’s entirely possible that this means nothing. And we all know that Trump and his team lie about everything, anyway. But given Republicans’ obsession with weaponizing language around abortion (ie, ban vs. ‘minimum national standard’), I’m paying close attention to exactly what they’re saying.
Listen Up
“Texas Matters” at Texas Public Radio has an impressive line-up for their episode on how the state’s ban is hurting women: The podcast spoke to ProPublica’s Kavitha Surana, who has reported on women’s deaths in Texas and Georgia; Washington Post reporter Caroline Kitchener, who broke the news that Texas’ maternal mortality board won’t analyze 2022 and 2023 data; and New Yorker reporter Stephania Taladrid, who wrote last week about the OBGYN exodus out of Texas.
You can listen to them all below:
ICYMI
If you missed Friday’s newsletter, make sure to check out this wild new anti-abortion legal strategy that conservatives are trying out in Minnesota. They’re claiming that abortion isn’t a medical procedure, but the termination of parental rights; and that in the same way someone who gives up a child up for adoption needs to go through a process to ensure they’re fully-consenting, so should abortion patients. It’s a novel—and a bit scary!—approach.
This is terrifying on so many levels. How can you ban people from seeking healthcare in another state?
We seriously need to remember, and respond appropriately, to the fact that these mostly men are actively trying to kill us until we capitulate, allow whatever they say and want to be shoved down our throats - with gratitude from us (remember when the Orange Rapist with Dead Eyes said that we the people WANT what he is selling?) - and accept our fates at their hands. Let's get real here, sisters and those who really are our brothers. He and they want absolute power. In the red states, what we are 'allowed' to read and when, where and if we can travel is being challenged. THEY WILL NOT BE HAPPY UNTIL THEY HAVE EATEN THE WORLD. They are working on creating an American Taliban and will not stop until no woman dares to speak or even dream her truth. What do you think they will do if and when they use technology to track every girl's and woman's menstrual and emotional states? And if you think that they would never do this, you are dreaming. Vance et aI believe, in their shriveled and blackened excuses for hearts, really believe that the only justification for our continued existence is that we have wombs and, until they develope an artificial womb that works, we are needed to produce boys. I have heard Men's Rights activists, and they and the magas are in total agreement about this, say that Trump and his should make rape a non-crime non-issue and that the women who say no or fight back should face severe criminal charges and that no woman should have a voice in her own fate, considering that we are property, with no more natural agency than a chair. Granted, these are not usually politicians saying this out loud, but you know they are thinking it.
For millennia, these guys and the boys who came before have used fear and shame to control us. Just look at the religious and social admonitions and restrictions applied to women, based on definitions and narratives of and about us that tell us, from birth, that we are just not very bright, we are dishonest and untrustworthy, our perspectives and truths are not worth paying any attention to and our speaking out, being angry or just plain wanting something other than what is 'offered' by the patriarchs is shameful and insane. Am I furious about generations of girls and women being defined by these patriarchal narratives as being far less worthy and human than the penised assholes? Oh, you have no idea. Which is why I want to be part of a mass exodus of women from male narratives and controls, so that we can finally rid ourselves of these hideous cycles that result too often in what they want of us - upon our knees, begging for our lives and kissing their rings. They want our pain, our fear, our shame. It feeds them. It is time to starve them. Start a women's group wherever you are, help each other to shake off their 'values' and grow into who we actually are. Which we still have to discover.
My motto is Freedom = I Won't and the group I am hoping to start will be called Lysistrata...a name I hope to hear in every woman's voice. Apologies for the length of my little rant here.